Childcare Bill - Standing Committee D

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Childcare Bill

Clause 1 - General functions of local authority: England

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 176, in clause 1, page 1, leave out line 16 and insert—
‘(3)The Secretary of State may require a local authority to work with relevant partners in co-operation with other local providers of childcare to submit proposed targets and supporting information before prescribing targets for:’.—[Annette Brooke.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Joe Benton: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments:
No. 118, in clause 4, page 3, line 17, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
‘(1)For the purposes of this section the relevant partners of a local authority in England are those specified in section 10(4) of the Children Act 2004 (c. 31).’.
No. 73, in clause 4, page 3, line 19, after ‘Trust’, insert ‘or other health trusts’.
No. 180, in clause 4, page 3, line 22, at end insert—
‘(c)a person providing services under section 114 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21) in any part of the area of the authority;
(d)the Learning and Skills Council for England.’.
No. 119, in clause 4, page 3, line 23, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2)Each local authority in England, in the performance by the authority of its duties under sections 1 and 3, must make arrangements to promote co-operation between—
(a)the authority;
(b)each of the authority’s relevant partners; and
(c)such other persons or bodies as the authority considers appropriate, being persons or bodies of any nature who exercise functions or are engaged in activities in relation to young children in the authority’s area.’.
No. 87, in clause 4, page 3, line 23, leave out ‘work with’ and insert ‘promote co-operation between’.
No. 120, in clause 4, page 3, line 41, at end add—
‘(7)In making arrangements under this section, a local authority in England must have regard to the importance of parents and other persons caring for children in improving the well-being of young children.’.

Tim Loughton: May I take this opportunity to welcome you as Chairman, Mr. Benton? I served under your chairmanship on another piece of children’s legislation without too much mishap, so I hope that we can repeat that experience.
The intention of amendment No. 87 is to reflect the terminology of the Children Act 2004. It is a probing amendment that explores the language of co-operation  between the local authority and its partners as set out in whichever of the lists the Minister wishes to use, be it the full list in the 2004 Act—as one of our amendments suggests—or the abridged version that appears in the Bill.
We are questioning how “work with” is better than “promote co-operation between”, given that so much falls on the shoulders of local authorities. Clearly, there must be joint responsibilities for the provisions to work That will require the co-operation of all partners. It bestows a greater obligation on the other parties—the police, the health authorities and so on—to play an integral part in the promotion of the well-being and welfare criteria that we discussed. Perhaps the Minister will give the Government’s impression of why “work with” should be included as opposed to the co-operation between partners that we agreed without any great discord during our deliberations on the 2004 Act.
Amendment No. 120 addresses something on which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) touched, and for which she and I pushed in the 2004 Act. This part of the Bill is aboutd¤the responsibilities of local authorities to disadvantaged children and the promotion of children’s welfare requirements generally. Surely it must be sensible for parents to be part of that equation. They do not necessarily have to be on the list of partners required to co-operate, but a local authority should take into account the wishes, circumstances, position and prospects of the parents of a child whom the Bill aims to help.

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Many of the children who I hope will be assisted by the Bill may well be part of lone-parent families in temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Therefore, they may well be moved around a borough and face a conflict between where is best from a housing and accommodation perspective and where a nursery place or child care is provided. That is a difficult balance for councils and parents to strike. Any guidance that we can give will be valuable.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend makes a good point that goes back to our earlier discussion. We can provide all numbers and types of child care places, but if they are not in the right places, they will not be taken up by the people who most need to take advantage of them. If we are to improve accessibility for disadvantaged children from disadvantaged families, transport is often a key consideration. Those families do not have the flexibility of transport that other, less disadvantaged, families may have. Her point about including the geographical circumstances is right in that respect.

Annette Brooke: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that it is vital to take on board the views of parents and carers if flexible child care is required, for example? I am talking about sessions for particular reasons, such as to access training. I do not understand how the planning can be carried out without reference to the needs of parents.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Lady is right. In relation to how we assessed the Bill, flexibility was a key consideration for many of us on Second Reading. Again, this is not a numbers game; it is about quality, accessibility and take-up. If we are trying to make it easier for parents to access good quality child care in order to access job markets, which they might not have been able to do before, obviously a local authority would be foolish not to take account of their circumstances when deciding how to implement the requirements. A local authority could say, “We’ve created 50 per cent. more child care places,” but find that the take-up of them was rather low because they were in the wrong part of that local authority’s area.
Flexibility must be a key consideration, which is why I phrased the amendment to include not just parents but “other persons caring”, who may be—again, this point is particularly applicable to disadvantaged families—extended family members or non-related carers. That also brings up the subject of looked-after children, where the local authority, either through placements in foster care or direct placements in children’s homes, plays the part of the parent with parental responsibility. I will not go into that in too much detail now because we have some later amendments that refer specifically to the role of looked-after children.
I have tried to phrase the amendment as helpfully as possible. I would be surprised if the Minister felt that she was not able to accept it for reasons of principle, but if there are some practical reasons why it is not appropriate, I would be pleased to reconsider the way in which it is phrased. Taking into account the considerations of the carers of a child must be vital.
The amendments are largely probing. They are aimed at teasing out some of the information that we talked about. Amendment No. 120, in particular, is aimed at strengthening the considerations in relation to local authorities to ensure that everybody appropriate has been consulted and that their circumstances have been taken on board before the legislation is implemented.

Andrew Selous: I apologise to you and the Committee for not being here at 4 o’clock, Mr. Benton. I am afraid that I have one or two other responsibilities that prevented me from being here at the start.
On amendment No. 120, I must admit that I am pretty surprised that parents have not been included as relevant partners under clause 4. If I may, I will return to the debate that we had on clause 1. I will be extremely brief because I know that you will rule me out of order if I spend too much time on it, Mr.d¤Benton.
Clause 1 starts by dealing with improving the well-being of all young children, as the Minister reminded us a number of times. It is surprising, at the very least, that parents are not mentioned explicitly in connection with that and specifically in relation to clause 4, to which amendment No. 120 refers. It must be obvious that even if children in school are in child care before or after they go to school, or if pre-school children are in child care for considerable periods, there is still time  when they are with their parents or carers in the evenings and at weekends. We all know that the attitude of parents to the well-being and specifically to the education of their children varies enormously from family to family. Whatever the level of child care and however excellent the facilities provided, if children go back to a home where the parents are involved with them—perhaps by sitting down and helping them to do their homework, by working out what problems they have had at school that day, by concentrating on the child’s weakest subject, which they work through in detail, and by providing extra support with homework in the evenings and at weekends—that will make a major difference to children’s performance.
That is a key aspect of the Bill, but parents cannot do that all on their own. Conservative Members accept the intention that child care provides all children and specifically the most disadvantaged children with the very best possible start in life. However, we must convince many more parents of the most disadvantaged children of the importance of hands-on involvement. It should not just be a middle-class preoccupation. It is a task for all of us who care about such matters to persuade parents of the concept of being key partners with the school and child care providers in boosting the life chances of children. Without that, we will be bitterly disappointed in the Bill’s results.
I may have misunderstood the place of parents in the Bill because I saw the Minister shake her head, so I will listen with interest to what she says, but I, for one, am alarmed that parents are not specifically mentioned in clause 4.

Beverley Hughes: May I add similar sentiments, Mr. Benton, to those expressed by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton)? It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in the Committee for the first time.
To improve the well-being of young children and reduce inequalities, the intention is that local authorities and their key partners must work closely together. We are not simply repeating section 10 of the 2004 Act. We are trying to build on the partnership as defined in that Act in a way that best suits the developmental progress of young children and the provision of early childhood services for the youngest children under five. As we discussed, it is important for the integration that we want to achieve—we know that that is important for outcomes—that those partners work together with a shared vision and with an integrated provision of services. We know that that can have a dramatic effect on outcomes for young children.
Clause 4 places a duty on local authorities and their partners in health care and in Jobcentre Plus to work together to improve the outcomes for young children. That will continue to develop the approach that was first set out in section 10 of the 2004 Act, under which local authorities must make arrangements to promote co-operation with relevant partners, with the aim of improving outcomes. Therefore, the 2004 Act aims to promote co-operation at all levels—governance,  strategy, structures, implementation—and section 10 is the provision under which the arrangements for children’s trusts are being developed.
The Bill takes that duty for young children further in three ways. First, it includes Jobcentre Plus, which we believe is important to improve the life chances of young children; secondly, it sets out how partners must work together to deliver services at the front line in ways that improve outcomes and reduce inequalities; and, thirdly, it focuses on young children in a way that ensures that services for them have the same importance and status as the statutory school system.
This group of amendments proposes replacing significant parts of clause 4 with the relevant subsections of section 10 of the 2004 Act. Although I fully endorse the approach taken by that Act, we want to develop it further in a way that is relevant for very young children. Instead of putting the onus on the local authority to promote co-operation between each partner and itself, the Bill puts the emphasis on the three partners vital to the well-being of the youngest children working together pro-actively to deliver those services at the front line. It is a stronger duty in the sense that each of the three has a duty to work actively with the other two. I hope that hon. Members can see that the Bill therefore takes the duty contained in the 2004 Act to another level.
The partners must deliver services in the ways set out in clause 3 and that must be integrated to maximise access and benefits to service users. The partners must also reach out actively to the most needy families and must involve parents in the planning and delivery of those services. I shall return to that point later in response to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous).
It is vital that strategic health authorities, primary care trusts and Jobcentre Plus take the initiative to deliver effective early childhood services to improve outcomes for young children. The emphasis in the Bill on “working together” rather than on “the promotion of co-operation” achieves that. I hope that members of the Committee will accept that, for those reasons, the Bill follows the drift of what they want to achieve and imposes on the three partners a stronger duty to work actively with one another. Therefore, I hope that members of the Committee will accept that the amendments are not only unnecessary, but would take us back to a weaker and less specific duty on those three partners.
While others apart from those three may have a role to play from time to time, the Bill places a specific focus on the organisations that, in practice, are essential to improving the outcomes of young children up to compulsory school age—health and employment services and local authorities.
The primary care trusts and strategic health authorities are essential to the success of Sure Start children’s centres, as they are the universal services provided for babies and young children. We recognise, however, that other NHS services such as foundation  trusts or mental health trusts, which were mentioned this morning, are key providers of relevant services. However, they retain a responsibility to provide those services as agreed under contracts with the primary care trusts that are the service commissioners, so it is unnecessary to add “other health trusts” as proposed by amendment No. 73.
We have deliberately not named all the relevant partners identified in section 10 of the 2004 Act because, as hon. Members began to recognise this morning, a number of those partners—for example, those in the criminal justice system—are not essential to the delivery of early childhood services. The same applies for local Connexions partnerships, which focus on supporting teenagers and young people, and for the Learning and Skills Council. It would not be appropriate to compel them to work with local authorities to deliver through children’s centres serving children under school age in the way outlined and required under clause 3.
As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, the Learning and Skills Council has an important role to play in effective training of the work force in delivering services for children. I agree that training of the work force is one important factor in driving up quality. The local learning and skills councils provide training for the children’s work force through contracts with training providers. However, the children’s trust arrangements under the Children Act 2004 already identify the LSC as a relevant partner in improving the well-being of children of all ages. It works closely with the linked local authorities to ensure that training provision meets the needs of the work force.
As I have explained, the partners identified in clause 4 are those that directly deliver integrated early childhood services. The LSC has an important role to play in equipping the early-years work force to deliver high-quality provision, but it does not actively deliver those services to young children itself, so it would not be appropriate to refer to the LSC in that clause.
I recognise, however, that local authorities must have flexibility to involve all, and any, organisations that could contribute to improving the life chances of young children. That is why clause 3 places a duty on local authorities to encourage and facilitate the involvement of
“other persons engaged in activities which may improve the well-being of young children in their area.”
Hon. Members will find that in subsection (4)(c). It will ensure that any organisation that contributes, including other children’s trust partners, is not excluded from involvement where appropriate—quite the opposite. For those reasons, I hope that hon. Members are satisfied that amendments Nos. 118 and 180 are unnecessary.
On amendment No. 120, I agree completely about the importance of involving parents and other persons caring for children. The speeches made by Opposition Members were well taken and they are absolutely right. The research tells us that the single most important factor, over and above child characteristics, home characteristics and school characteristics, for  children’s outcomes is parents, who can be a protective positive factor or a negative factor. There is no question about that, and I agree completely about the importance of involving them. That is why clause 3 stipulates that local authorities
“must take all reasonable steps to encourage and facilitate the involvement ... of ... parents and prospective parents in their area”
in the planning and delivery of services.
The definition of parents, specifically in clause 2(2) is, as hon. Members will see, wide, covering parents and carers. In addition, the requirement to involve early-years providers ensures that professional carers are involved. I hope that hon. Members agree that we have already provided in clause 3 for parents to be fully involved by local authorities, not only in planning but in delivering on their duties to improve the well-being of young children and reduce inequalities. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members agree that amendment No. 120 is also unnecessary.
Amendment No. 176 would require authorities, their relevant partners in social, health and employment services and other child care providers to work together to suggest targets for improving the well-being of children. That additional duty is not the best way to produce targets that are agreed at local level. Statutory targets have a place, which is why we intend to set out in regulations the process for setting them. I have already explained that, in practice, that will operate through the existing process for priorities meetings and will involve local authorities, health providers, health services and any other partners at local level that local authorities wish to invite. They will have a meeting with their strategic adviser from the Government Office and there will be a discussion and an agreement about appropriate targets, including statutory targets.

Annette Brooke: I am already receiving some reassurance from the Minister, but would she be prepared to place on record that, under normal circumstances, those targets will not be dictated from Whitehall down to local authorities?

Beverley Hughes: I am happy to put that on the record. Let me give the hon. Lady further reassurance. The next two Government amendments—the point she raised this morning—are precisely designed to ensure that what we set out in the regulations and guidance will be the process for setting targets, not the targets themselves. They will be mutually agreed at a local level with strategic advisers. They can feed into the children’s plan and will provide indicators for local area agreements with local authorities or local public service agreements if the authority so wishes. I hope that I have shown in summary how the approach we adopted in the Bill works best for young children.
I hope that I have assured Members on the points that they have raised and that they agree that their amendments are not necessary.

Annette Brooke: May I also say, Mr. Benton, that it will be a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for part of the Bill? You chaired the proceedings on the Children Bill and so there will be some continuity, which is always good.
I thank the Minister for her detailed response. Some useful points have been placed on the record, which was the purpose of several of the amendments. As an initial response to try to decipher the meaning of working in co-operation and working together it was a helpful start, although we may want to revisit it.
We will continue the debate on amendment No. 146 later, if we may. I am pleased to have some reassurance there. On amendments Nos. 118 and 180, again, I listened carefully to the Minister. I may need to revisit the matter of the Learning and Skills Council. An exceptional work force are effectively starting from a low qualifications base. We have lots of potentially very talented people but the qualifications and the professional development are really lacking in what is, as was said on Second Reading, the most crucial time of interaction with children. It is important that the Learning and Skills Council must be fully on board in terms of the allocation of resources for training. I am prepared to accept what the Minister says at this point.
I am not altogether reassured on amendment No.d¤120. The Minister invited us to have a look at clause 3. I see the word “parents”, but I do not pick up that they are listened to. It seems to me that we are possibly telling parents what they might want, and indeed we are seeking them out. Those are all useful things in terms of providing information, but I do not specifically see provision for listening to parents and looking at the whole situation from their perspective. I am happy to be corrected.

Beverley Hughes: I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to clause 3(4) to see whether that satisfies her. It states:
“An English local authority must take all reasonable steps to encourage and facilitate the involvement in the making and implementation of arrangements under this section of—
(a) parents and prospective parents in their area”.
That includes listening as well as talking and possibly telling. It involves them in the making and implementation of all those arrangements.

Annette Brooke: I am grateful to the Minister for her intervention, and I accept, on the record, that the making and implementation of arrangements involves listening. She will take my point that that is not on the face of the Bill in the way that was implied by the earlier reference. I thank her for her response and, although there are one or two areas that we need to revisit at a later stage in the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Beverley Hughes: I beg to move amendment No.d¤128, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out ‘prescribe’ and insert
‘, in accordance with regulations, set’.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment No. 129.
Amendment No. 192, in clause 1, page 2, line 8, at end insert—
‘(4A)In exercising their functions, an English local authority must ensure that—
(a)the improvement of well-being of young children in its area is monitored and evaluated;
(b)the reduction of inequalities between young children in its area is monitored and evaluated;
(c)young children’s views and experiences are included in any monitoring and evaluation undertaken under this section; and
(d)a report on improvements in young children’s well-being and the reduction of inequalities between young children in its area is made annually to the Secretary of State.’.

Beverley Hughes: The two Government amendments make a minor change to the wording but an important, substantive change to the Secretary of State’s power to set targets for local authorities in improving outcomes for young children and narrowing the gaps in their achievement. Subsection (3) requires the targets for improving well-being and reducing inequality to be set out in the regulations. As we intend targets to be set for each local authority after discussion, the subsection is clearly not practical or correct. Amendment No. 128 clarifies that the regulations mentioned in subsection (3) would prescribe the procedures by which targets would be set, and amendment No. 129 makes a minor consequential change to subsection (4).
Although we cannot provide precise draft regulations to the Committee today, I can give an indication of their content. We envisage that regulations would set out the broad areas that statutory targets must address, which may vary from time to time, and we also require the Secretary of State to take account of local authorities’ representations about their individual targets. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole that targets will genuinely be set, as I have said on the record, with local authorities and their partners, rather than being imposed by central Government without discussion.
Although I hesitate to re-open the debate with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham over whether targets should be qualitative or quantitative, we will need to be able to measure outcomes. Perhaps an example would be helpful. Deciding whether a young child is healthy is a matter for a doctor’s professional judgment. Assessing a local authority’s contribution through children’s centres to the health of young children would be very burdensome, unless we use some proxy indicators. For example, with the health of young children, we might consider child obesity levels or the numbers of children attending accident and emergency as a proxy for their health and safety. In the current climate of reducing central control and increasing local autonomy, it is important as a way of directing local resources to achieve the aim of improving well-being of young children. Statutory targets have an important role in that. However, I appreciate that in setting targets, we must take care that they are proportionate and avoid creating  perverse incentives, but that they need to push forward the continued development of early childhood services.
Because of the serious nature of the power to set targets, it is right that the process by which they are set should be set out in regulations that are both transparent and subject to parliamentary process. I envisage that regulations would set out the broad areas that mandatory targets must address. As currently worded, the individual targets would, as I have said, need to be set out in regulations, but that is clearly not the way to go. The regulations must set out the process and I hope that I have explained that clearly. I recommend that the two amendments be adopted by the Committee.
Amendment No. 192 is designed to compel local authorities to evaluate and report on the measures that they take to improve the well-being of young children. I appreciate that evaluation and monitoring are an essential part of the process, but it is not necessary to put them in statute. Members of the Committee who are familiar with “Every Child Matters” will know about the improvement cycle for children’s services, which is a process of continuous assessment, planning and evaluation that includes a local assessment of needs, discussion of priorities with local partners and central Government, and local development of the children and young people’s plan. The evaluation of all local services is conducted through the joint area review, which includes a survey of the views of children and young people, and Ofsted monitors local authority children’s services through the data-based annual performance assessment. The final children and young people’s plan, the annual performance assessment and the joint area review are all submitted to the Secretary of State. There are, therefore, robust apparatus for inspection and monitoring in place, which ensure that evaluation is carried out at a local level by the local authority and its key partners, and by independent inspectorates.
Our approach, which is consistent with the general direction of travel of government, has been to create a legal framework with only as much prescription as is absolutely necessary, so that local authorities and their partners can develop services that best suit the needs of children and the circumstances of their area. Clause 16 brings the duties in part 1 of the Bill into the remit of the processes of the children and young people’s plan and the joint area review. I hope that hon. Members will accept that those robust apparatus mean that the amendment is not necessary.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for her elaboration regarding the regulations. I have a few points to make on amendment No. 192. I am a little saddened that the Minister dismissed it quite so quickly, and there are a few questions to which I would like to tease out answers.
The amendment was tabled because, as was shown by our discussion this morning, there needs to be clarity about how on earth reducing inequalities will work in practice. There is an outcomes framework, which came in this September. I understand that the targets that specifically cover the early years are a little  patchy. I think that the framework concerns such things as infant mortality rates and the level of development reached at the end of foundation stage. Will an outcomes framework be developed for children under five? We could have a great deal of partnership working in developing the framework for younger children.
The Minister mentioned existing joint area review inspection processes. It is important to appreciate how they will fit in with the new duties on local authorities.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Can the hon. Lady help me to understand her point. This morning she abstained on amendment No.d¤64, demonstrating, I think, that she is indifferent as to whether reducing inequalities is in the Bill, yet she is now asking for additional monitoring to be put in place to reduce inequalities. I am not sure that that is a consistent approach.

Annette Brooke: I am clear that I am approaching matters consistently, and I am not really interested in getting into political crossfire. I explained exactly why I took that stance this morning, and any justification that needed to be made was made then. Throughout my contributions, certainly, I have made the point that how the provision is implemented is all important. I am talking about the practical implementation rather than the theoretical interpretation. What I am saying is particularly relevant at this time and, given the later recommendations in the Bill, I was disappointed to be intervened on during something as important as asking whether there will be an outcomes framework for children from birth to five years.
There are processes through which children’s views are obtained, as the Minister explained. With this amendment, I have in mind the views of young children. I shall expand on that in some depth when we debate a later amendment. The work that has been done to gather young children’s views is interesting, and some of it has been funded by the Government. The booklets and pamphlets produced by the National Children’s Bureau are absolutely fascinating. They show that it is not a one-way system, but an interactive system. The introduction of the idea that young children’s views should be taken on board would be a big step forward.
I am really taken by the NCB pamphlets. We read young children’s views on food and, as anybody who has helped to feed a child knows, they can express those views in all sorts of ways. One pamphlet is about determining the viewpoints of young disabled children. That is so interesting and so pertinent to the Bill. I should like the Minister to respond to that point. I listened carefully to what she said about the provision being too prescriptive. There are processes in place, but I want to be assured that the processes are tailored to work with the Bill and the new duty on local authorities.

Tim Loughton: I thank the Minister as it is useful to have some illustrative examples of forthcoming regulations, although I was disappointed when she started by talking about broad areas that may be varied by the Secretary of State, taking into account  local authority representations. It did not give us much more detail than the Bill, although she mentioned a couple of useful and obvious health outcomes. If she continues to give us examples, they will help our deliberations in the absence even of draft regulations, let alone regulations themselves. I have no great argument with what she is attempting with the Government amendment.
I have some sympathy with the Liberal Democrat amendment. We have been consistent, because amendment No. 65 to this clause sought to change the reduction on inequalities to raising the quality of outcomes for the most disadvantaged. We have been entirely consistent, even though we have been defeated by the greater numbers if not the strength of argument of the Government Members.
As I mentioned in my opening comments, if the Bill is to mean anything, the improvement in well-being and the welfare criteria must be properly monitored and evaluated. I have a deal of sympathy with taking account of young children’s views. It is particularly hard—much harder than in the Children Bill, when many of us argued for and succeeded in reinforcing the need to consult children. I know that it is something that the new Children’s Commissioner for England is keen to do and has actively done during his few months in the position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) commented on children’s eating habits and food labelling, and how it is essential to take into account how young people react to certain food products and the way in which those products are packaged. I have recounted the experiment that I carried out with two of my children when they were aged about eight and 10. I took them to Tesco, gave them each £10 and instructed them to buy food for the following day’s meals, which they thought very exciting. They came back having spent within a few pennies of their £10. They had lots of things that contained 49 per cent. sugar but were in packages with nice cartoon characters on the front. They had crisps that were endorsed by certain celebrities, and various things that were not terribly good for them. In many cases, they had been attracted by the way the products were presented.
I admit that my children were exceedingly good at getting great value for money on two-for-one offers and so on. I was therefore proud of them in one respect but disappointed that, predictably, they had responded to things that were not best for them. We are all concerned about achieving better responses from children. Obviously, if that goes for slightly older children, it goes all the more for younger children, who would just throw a hissy fit and refuse to eat their greens or whatever it may be. We must explore ways of taking children’s views on board, and I hope that there will be reference to that in some of the accompanying regulations or guidance to local authorities when they are published.
My final point on amendment No. 192 is about reporting to the Secretary of State. If such reports are to be meaningful, it is important that they be made to Parliament rather than to the Secretary of State—I shall not go into detail about that at the moment—so that we can find out how the proposals are working or not working, in which case they may need to be adjusted. If that is to be done by affirmative resolution, we will know how to adjust them at some future stage.
We sought assurances in the 2004 Act that annual reporting by, for example, the Children’s Commissioner would go to Parliament primarily, rather than to the Secretary of State who may choose not to publish all the information that is provided to him. Some of us would be very much in favour of a mechanism whereby the Education and Skills Committee or a Sub-Committee would have an annual sitting for the Children’s Commissioner or for reports on the well-being of children and how that has improved or not in the year. Such reports could be scrutinised by the Select Committee or Sub-Committee in much the same way as the Governor of the Bank of England, by tradition, appears before the Treasury Committee once a year. If we are putting all these new mechanisms in place, it is important that there is a way for us in this place to monitor them in a clear, transparent and meaningful way.
The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole is happy with some of the responses on the amendment that she received from the Minister and, in principle, I have a good deal of sympathy with some of the things that it is trying to achieve.

Beverley Hughes: I am grateful for those comments from Opposition Members. I shall try to deal with their further queries. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole asked about defining and then assessing outcomes. In fact, we will develop a new outcome framework and review the early-years and child care components of the annual performance assessment and the comprehensive performance assessment. Obviously, they will have to relate to the early-years foundation stage that we shall discuss later in the Bill.
We will also develop a performance management framework with performance indicators for children’s centres. They will be based on the five outcomes in “Every Child Matters” so that, at the level of setting as well as at the local authority level, an apparatus will be in place to require the local authority and the children’s centre staff to monitor how they are doing and evaluate their performance against indicators.
Both Opposition Members raised the importance of the views of children. I agree that the views of children, even those under five, should be sought and deployed when delivering services. As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, valuable work is being undertaken by partners, particularly in the voluntary sector, to produce good practice guidance on how we can consult children, including those with a range of disabilities, in individual settings. Through the  children’s centre guidance, we are encouraging local authorities to use their resources to consult young children who use the services.
On the final point made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, I said earlier that the measures of performance—the annual performance assessment, the comprehensive performance assessment and the joint area review—were submitted to the Secretary of State. They are submitted to the Secretary of State, but, of course, they are all published by the various organisations that undertake them, whether we are talking about Ofsted or the Audit Commission. Those documents are in the public domain and anybody can get hold of them.

Annette Brooke: I apologise because I am going back to an earlier point. Will the Minister assure me that working up the new outcomes will be done in conjunction with relevant partners in the voluntary sector?

Beverley Hughes: I certainly will. As I said at the beginning—this is the case throughout the guidance on the Bill—we will consult widely and extensively on all the matters that we have yet to define in detail, including the outcomes framework and the foundation stage itself.

Tim Loughton: I understand that the figures that Ofsted produces are published when a copy is given to the Secretary of State. That happens simultaneously, so there is no problem about the figures being transparent. The problem with the Children’s Commissioner’s report is that it is not published until the Secretary of State has scrutinised it and the Secretary of State may seek to change it. We are concerned because the figures should be published in full for Parliament to see, rather than having a situation in which a Secretary of State could choose to—that is not to say that he or she would—censor them in some way by removing parts of the information.

Beverley Hughes: I have not specifically discussed the Children’s Commissioner’s report with the commissioner, but I have had several meetings with him and I would be astonished if he allowed anybody—the Secretary of State or otherwise—to change his report. He quite rightly guards his independence and his reputation very jealously. With regard to the other measures of assessment that the hon. Gentleman was referring to, the outcomes of those assessments, as I think that he acknowledged, are owned by other bodies, not by the Department for Education and Skills. We receive them, but they are published and are in the public domain.
I hope that, with those assurances, Members will be happy to accept the Government amendment and that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole will not press her amendment.

Annette Brooke: I am happy not to press my amendment, but we may wish to revisit the idea of an annual report to Parliament.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 129, in clause 1, page 2, line 7, leave out ‘prescribed’ and insert ‘set’.—[Beverley Hughes.]

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 88, in clause 1, page 2, line 8, at end insert
‘and explained as clearly and transparently as possible to parents.’.
This is a probing amendment and it would be useful to have the Minister’s response. It still relates to the exercising of the functions of local authorities in order to secure the targets—that horrible word—that have been laid down by the Secretary of State. There should be a clear steer for local authorities to make the information as user-friendly as possible. Most parents, whether they come from an advantaged or disadvantaged background, will have little knowledge of the well-being criteria and precious little knowledge of what it means in terms of the impact on their child. That is not to undermine the interest and concern of parents, but the information will not register.
Talking in broad terms, mental health and emotional well-being may mean many different things to many different people. It should be inherent in the advice given to local authorities enacting the legislation to secure those targets that they should go out of their way, particularly as this is pioneering legislation and parents have not been used to this level of support being marshalled by local authorities, to ensure that the information provided is as clear, user-friendly and transparent as possible.
The criteria may mean anything to anybody. For example, subsection (2)(d) refers to
“the contribution made by them to society”.
Does that mean their contribution if they have been successful enough to play football for the England football team or to win the Eurovision song contest? The criteria need to be explained in terms that parents can relate to, so that they know what to expect. If we are to empower parents more and give them greater control over the way they can access child care, they need to know what to expect when it goes right or if they fear that it is going wrong and what should have happened to provide them with the quality child care that they were led to expect.
This is a probing amendment that suggests that if the targets are to be meaningful, there should be a clear directive such as a local authority producing simple, straightforward pamphlets saying “This is what you can expect for your child in this borough.” That would be helpful and I am sure that that is the Government’s intention if the proposals are to mean anything. It is worth bringing the matter up in Committee to allow the Minister to signal her agreement and to explain in what practical way that will be achieved.

Beverley Hughes: I agree with the spirit of the amendment in that parents should be given as much information as possible and that that should be done in a way that is meaningful and transparent to them.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Bill already places several duties on local authorities in this regard. Clause 12 places a specific duty on them to establish and maintain a service that provides information, advice and assistance to parents not just about the provision of child care but about any services or facilities that they need to support themselves and their young children. That duty is the most effective way of ensuring that parents and prospective parents receive the information they need about services.
The hon. Gentleman proposes to require local authorities to explain to parents any targets that might have been set by the Secretary of State. There are already two ways under the Bill in which that can and will be done. Under the 2004 Act, local authorities must produce and publish a children and young person’s plan setting out their strategy for delivering services. Hon. Members who are involved with their local authorities will be aware that most of them have made a great deal of progress in making those high-level plans accessible and meaningful.
The children and young people’s plan covers all children and young people in the authority’s area, including their early childhood services, and clearly will have to contain all the relevant information in an accessible way, along with anything relating to targets. However, what is more important for children’s centres—the main vehicle for delivering early childhood services—is that in spring next year, as I have just said in reply to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, we will publish a new performance management framework that will ask all children’s centres to publish annually a detailed account and self-evaluation of their services. It will include their contribution towards progress in the “Every Child Matters” outcomes and any national targets that we have set for the local authority involved.
The framework will have a clear focus on the quality of provision and how it improves outcomes for children, what parents can expect, what sense they can make of it and how it all hangs together. That is what parents want to know about—the quality of services and how their children can benefit from the integrated front-line services. As I say, that document, too, will contain details of national targets and the way in which the children’s centres are working towards them. I hope that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will recognise that, at the local authority level and the children’s centre level, we intend to ensure that parents have full, accessible, transparent and meaningful information. I therefore hope that he will seek to withdraw the amendment.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the Minister, who did what I hoped she would and gave some weight to the considerations that she was putting forward. Even if she does not consider it appropriate to put them in  the Bill, she clearly outlined the mechanisms by which such information will be made available, and must be made available if parents are to play an active and meaningful role. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Meaning of “early childhood services” for purposes of section 3

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 68, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, after ‘services’, insert ‘or children’s services’.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 69, in clause 2, page 2, line 25, at end insert
‘ “children’s services”, in relation to a local authority, has the same meaning as in Section 23(3) of the Children Act 2004 (c.31).’.
No. 212, in clause 16, page 9, line 6, at end insert—
‘(4)In section 19 (Lead member of children’s services), after paragraph (a) insert
“(aa)the functions conferred on or exercisable by the authority specified in Part 1 of the Childcare Act 2006,”.’.

Tim Loughton: We are making rapid progress: we are on clause 2—and it is dark.
Again, these are probing amendments that set out some of the differences, or similarities, between the Bill and the 2004 Act. The Act talks of children’s services departments. I know that there have been big changes in local authority social services departments, which are now split into adult services departments and children’s services departments. As part of the 2004 Act, local authorities are required specifically to establish directors of children’s services, a function that we agree with, as the buck with whom responsibility should stop for problems relating to the abuse of children or indeed welfare criteria. That was a new provision in the Act that we very much supported.
In probing with amendments Nos. 68 and 69, I am therefore asking the Minister why we still refer to the local authority’s social services functions, when, to mirror the terminology of the 2004 Act, we could refer to children’s services. Clearly adult services will not have a direct role in this matter, which is limited to children’s services. Amendment No. 68 would make that change in clause 2(1)(b). The addition of children’s services, again as per the 2004 Act, is  relevant in subsection (2). Either there has been a mistake or there is a good reason for the drafting, on which the Minister will enlighten us.
I deal now with the third of the trio of amendments, although I think I know the answer to this point, which was raised by the National Union of Teachers. Another element of the reorganisation of social services into children’s services departments is the fact that there should be a lead elected member of the local authority who will have responsibility over various children’s services matters. I think that that responsibility is automatically transferred, as part of the legislation. Is that the case? I am referring specifically to clause 16. If that is not the case, why is the lead member for children’s services not being given responsibility over this child care legislation, considering that he or she has been given responsibility for the other activities of children’s services through the 2004 Act?
These probing amendments were tabled to try to get some continuity with the 2004 Act. I see that in-flight refuelling is now arriving to give us a reason for the difference.

Maria Eagle: It is a great pleasure to get to my feet at last, not least because it gives my back a bit of a rest. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham says that it is dark, which it is, but it is also early yet, so I do not feel I have done too badly to have waited this long.
The hon. Gentleman moved the lead amendment and spoke to the others in the group with great precision and admirable brevity. He said that they are probing amendments, but their purpose seems to be to expand the services listed in clause 2 to include all of the children’s services in the 2004 Act and to widen the remit of the director of children’s services to cover all the functions in part 1 of the Bill.
The amendments deals with the legal foundation for early childhood services. The duty on local authorities to improve the well-being of young children, set out in clause 1, is one of the key tenets of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 4 set out the broad legal framework of minimum requirements, within which local service providers have maximum autonomy to plan the delivery of services for young children in ways that best suit local circumstances. The new duties will operate with the arrangements for children’s trusts, and the director of children’s services and the lead member for children’s services already being established under 2004 Act.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question about why there is a reference in the clause to social services rather than children’s services is that social services functions are set out in the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, and that the children’s services in the 2004 Act include only those services that relate to children. I do not think that the fact the clause refers to social services and not children’s services will cause any confusion or difficulty.

Tim Loughton: I follow what the Minister says, but the 1970 Act is quite old. Obviously, there has been a fairly major transformation of social services  departments since then. Would it not be sensible to use this legislation to recognise the differentiation that is happening as we speak within social services and the clear definition of children’s services departments and what they are now responsible for?

Maria Eagle: I understand the point the hon. Gentleman makes. My understanding is that the way this is set out in the clause will deal unequivocally with children’s services as they are defined in the Children Act. It is not necessary for us to use the wording that he suggested. I am not saying that it would not be possible to use that wording. Parliamentary counsel can do many things, but I am advised that it is not necessary to make any such changes. I hope that that reassures him.
There is certainly no difference between what we are trying to say and what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say. Were we to use the phrase “children’s services” as in the 2004 Act rather than “social services”, it would include all children’s services, not just those that relate specifically to young children. We have had a debate about what should be included and we will talk about that again. The hon. Gentleman will see from clause 2 that we are dealing with services that pertain to improving the outcomes for children under the age of five. We do not believe that the present wording leads to any defects or confusions. I do not claim that the wording could not be different, but there is no confusion as far as we are aware.

Tim Loughton: I am confused. If the Minister is saying that changing to a children’s services department would in some way bring in all the activities of the children’s services department which are not relevant to the Bill, surely the use of the existing phrase—social services—brings in not only all the children’s services departments, but all the adult service activities that come under the umbrella of social services. The Minister is making the situation worse if that is the criterion, which is why I am rather confused.

Maria Eagle: Clause 2(1)(b) refers to
“the social services functions of the local authority, so far as relating to young children, parents or prospective parents”.
It makes it clear that we are not trying to make the clause cover all social services, including adult social services and their activities. It is always possible for drafting to be different and still to do the job that we all want it to do. I think that this wording is fine. If we used the phrase about children’s services that relates to the 2004 Act we would bring in more services than we are seeking to do.
The intention is that clause 2 should define very precisely early childhood services for the purposes of clause 3 and later bits of the Bill. It defines them in respect of early years provision, health services, employment services and information services for the sake of clarity. We do not want to do anything that would undermine that clarity.

Annette Brooke: As the Minister was speaking, it became clear that we need adult social services for parents with disabilities, parents with mental health  problems and so on. I think I am beginning to share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham about whether children’s social services are clearly identifiable now, given that we have integrated children’s services. Adult social services are clearly distinct still, but I am now unconvinced about what the Minister is saying. I am not sure that I could go to my local authority and say, “I want to go to children’s social services”, or find somebody who specifically works for children’s social services. I am not sure, as we are progressing towards full integration of children’s services, that that is the case.

Maria Eagle: I am sorry to have unconvinced the hon. Lady; that was not my intention. The Bill includes social services functions in relation to young children, parents or prospective parents. The hon. Lady and others will know that children’s centres have a focus on prevention, so the functions include family support services, which might, for example, deal with parenting classes, fathers’ groups, debt counselling and other help and support at key stages. All that kind of thing is included. That reflects the importance of providing early support to prevent things from going wrong, and to ensure that we can meet our overall obligation under the legislation, which is trying to improve outcomes generally and improve those of the most disadvantaged most. We will not go back into that at present—we had that debate this morning—but we believe that the phrasing is right. We do not have a concern that the way in which clause 2 is worded will cause confusion or exclude services that ought to be important in ensuring those objectives. It is certainly true that there are other adult social services out there, as my right hon. Friend the Minister made clear during the debate on amendment No. 176.
We are not being prescriptive and saying that no other services or other elements of what the local authority does can be included in that work. However, we are setting out the minimum that we want to be included in clause 2 where we are defining early childhood services. We are not trying to say that it must be this and no other, and in the context of the children’s trusts and the children and young people’s plans it is specific to local authorities that have different situations and different circumstances and populations. Locally, they may decide that they want to include various other agencies and other bits of the local authorities, the public sector and the state generally. The clause sets out—I thought, quite clearly, but obviously, I have not been able to convince hon. Members opposite that it is as clear as we thought—what we mean by early childhood services. I hope that provides some reassurance to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, but no doubt he will let me know whether it does when he replies.
On amendment No. 212, the hon. Gentleman expressed a concern that locally elected members should have responsibility for the duties set out in the  Bill. However, I have some good news for him: I can tell him that his amendment is not necessary, not because I disagree with what he is trying to achieve with it but because the relevant statutory provision, which would achieve what he is seeking to achieve, has already been made. Clause 16(2), which amends the responsibilities of the director of children’s services, as set out in the 2004 Act, to include the new duties on authorities under part 1 of the Bill does the job. In the Children Act, the responsibility of the lead member for children’s services simply refers to the duties of the director of children’s services, so no further amendment is required to bring the new duties within the lead member’s remit. As they are brought within the remit of the director of children’s services, so they are brought within the remit of the lead member.

Tim Loughton: The Minister referred to clause 16(2) of the Children Act 2004.

Maria Eagle: No, of this Bill.

Tim Loughton: Right, because clause 16(2) of the Children Act is to do with safeguarding children’s boards.

Maria Eagle: In respect of this group of amendments, we are leaping around between different clauses. I was referring to clause 16(2) of this Bill. The job that the hon. Gentleman seeks to do with amendment No. 212 is already done by that clause, which we keep reaching in various different ways, and no doubt will continue to do, depending on the grouping of amendments. He can withdraw his amendment, secure in the knowledge that we have accepted that what he is trying to achieve should be achieved and we have achieved it in clause 16(2).

Tim Loughton: As I said, I suspected that that was the case for that amendment; I just wanted it to be made clear. However, I am rather less clear than I was when I started, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole is, on why the terminology “social services” is still being used. Amendment No. 68 would take nothing away; it would add the phrase “children’s services”. Children’s services would simply also be covered by the phrase
“so far as relating to young children, parents or prospective parents”.
The amendment does not encompass all the functions of the children’s services department; it merely hones it to the children’s services part of the social services department, which is in effect becoming defunct because it has been split into two main activities.
I am concerned because the whole point of establishing children’s services departments was to create a line of accountability and somewhere that the buck would stop. That is the recommendation in Herbert Laming’s report on the Victoria Climbié affair. There were many different lines of responsibility, none of which resulted in the buck stopping somewhere meaningful. We were keen to support the establishment of children’s services departments because it set up departments that  concentrated on the welfare of children and that brought various agencies—health, police and justice agencies—together with social workers so that all the relevant information could be dealt with and all the relevant observation carried out, and that information could be passed up the responsibility chain. Key decisions that needed to be made were to be made ultimately by the director of children’s services. When things went wrong, the accountability chain and the buck stopped firmly at the desk of the director of children’s services. That is a very important part of the Children Act 2004, with which we all agreed.
It is important that authorities that are in the process of recruiting directors of children’s services do so as quickly as possible to join up all those different strands of information, support and services. My concern is that that line of accountability and the protection that it affords children under the 2004 Act should be just as relevant when applied to younger children under this Bill.

Maria Eagle: I shall try to assist the hon. Gentleman and to be as clear as I can about why the amendment would be more rather than less confusing. Amendment No. 68 suggests that a reference to “or children’s services” be placed after what is already there, which is a reference to “social services functions”. The provision continues:
“so far as relating to young children, parents or prospective parents”.
The hon. Gentleman would bring into the remit of the clause all children’s services, not just those that relate to the young children for whom the clause is designed to improve outcomes. That might seem a minor point, but it is why I say that what is currently in the Bill does the job. I understand his point that referring to social services instead of children’s services appears to be a throwback to the past, but it is not intended to be and it will not be in practice.

Tim Loughton: I think that the hon. Lady is wrong. I cannot see how adding “or children’s services” would bring in all the children’s services departments’ responsibilities and activities if we retained the
“so far as relating to young children, parents or prospective parents”,
which we propose to retain and never proposed to take out. It is just not possible that adding an extra qualification can open up the provision to all sorts of activities. Ideally, I would have the amendment take out the reference to social services and replace it with “children’s services”, subject still to the relevance considerations. I was not sure why social services were included, and that is why I added children’s services by way of a probing amendment.
The Minister has got into a bit of a tizz about the amendment. What was only a probing point has turned out to be something of a concern, for the reason I discussed. It is essential that the accountability chain ends with the director of children’s services, because my understanding is that in the Bill all considerations pertaining to the local authority are the responsibility of children’s services departments of local authorities and, ultimately within that department, the director of  children’s services, who is either in place or will be required to be in place in short order under the Children Act 2004.
I am not sure that under the Minister’s wording children of a younger age who will be subject to the provisions of the Bill will be covered by the same level of protection that a director of children’s services, who is ultimately responsible for things going right, but more importantly, for things going wrong, affords them under the 2004 Act.
It is an omission, and I should be grateful if the Minister could provide any new assurances, because I fear that she has not done so up to now. If she cannot, I should ask either for her to reconsider the wording of the clause and, specifically, our amendment, or for the Committee to push the amendment to a vote. It is an important point, and the Minister has not properly addressed it. Indeed, her last statement was simply wrong.

Maria Eagle: I have done my best to convince the hon. Gentleman and I have clearly failed, which is a shame. I cannot say anything further other than repeat what I have said, and that would not be a good use of the Committee’s time. In that sense, I am unable to provide him with the further assurance that he seeks.

Tim Loughton: I am disappointed, because I had hoped that the Minister would at least say that she would go away and consider the matter. The story seemed to be changing as we went through the explanation of the amendment. We are entitled to ensure that the same degree of protection is afforded to children under this Bill as we all agreed was needed by setting up children’s services department with a director of children’s services in the 2004 Act. On that basis, I ask the Committee to vote on amendment Nos. 68 and 69, but not on amendment No. 212, as we are happy to withdraw it.

Joe Benton: For the benefit of the Committee, the lead amendment is amendment No. 68, which I shall put to the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 5, Noes 10.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 213, in clause 2, page 2, line 26, after ‘child’, insert
‘, or an employee of an English local authority with responsibility for the care of a young child,’.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 214, in clause 6, page 4, line 39, after ‘individual’, insert
‘, including an employee of an English local authority with responsibility for the care of a child,’.
No. 215, in clause 12, page 7, line 16, after ‘person’, insert
‘, or an employee of an English local authority with responsibility for the care of a young child or young person,’.

Tim Loughton: The amendments are very much of the same character. They deal with the important subject of looked-after children, which we were keen to discuss in some depth in the 2004 Act. I know that the issue exercises the mind of the Minister and many colleagues in my party because of the appalling outcomes for looked-after children in this country. Those outcomes have been a scandal for many years and they continue to be a scandal.
By almost any measure, looked-after children—of which there are some 61,000 in England—get a raw deal. At every level, their educational achievement lags enormously behind that of children living with birth parents. Their health outcomes are appalling: for example, 30 per cent. have had no vaccinations at all, and almost one quarter of children in care have a major depressive illness, compared with some 4 per cent. of children in general. We all know that a much higher percentage of looked-after children end up with depression, as rough sleepers, homeless, involved in teenage pregnancies or lacking training. Only 1 per cent. go on to university. Therefore, it is important that we give them some consideration in the Bill.
The purpose of these virtually identical amendments is to add to the definition of “parent” in clauses 2, 6 and 12. It is not clear that looked-after children have been considered in the definition. In clause 2(2), a parent is defined as
“a parent of a young child, and includes any individual who—
(a) has parental responsibility for a young child, or
(b) has care of a young child”.
I hope that the Minister will tell us that that implicitly involves looked-after children, with the local authority acting as the corporate parent. I am keen to single out such children as requiring special mention in the Bill, and to address a potential anomaly in that the local authority may end up acting as a regulator, monitor, provider and consumer of child care services. That territory leads to conflict of interest.
Who determines if there is sufficient child care provision in a local authority’s area—we will be discussing this later—if there is a not insubstantial group of children who need access to such child care places or other provisions, and who are the responsibility of the local authority either through direct provision in children’s homes or, more commonly, through the use of short-term and long-term foster parents? Might a local authority claim that it has discharged its functions under the Bill by procuring sufficient child care places in its geographical area of  responsibility either by procuring provision from the public sector and the private, voluntary and independent sectors, or, if it is deemed necessary, by providing the places itself? If certain looked-after children have difficulty in accessing those child care places, who will challenge the local authority’s ruling that it has made sufficient provision?
Such circumstances, which are not extreme, could arise. In such circumstances, looked-after children could again be at the bottom of the heap. It would be useful to have a debate on what will be expected of local authorities when dealing with children in their care. Are those children to be considered on an equal basis in relation to gaining child care places, or will they be an afterthought because they will not complain much if they do not get places because an employee of the local authority is ultimately responsible for them? If a foster parent complains about the lack of child care provision, the child could be passed on to another foster carer.
These are probing amendments; we need to debate this important area of child care. It would be useful to have the provisions set out in detail so that we can avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest later. The children about whom we are talking deserve and require special help, and need access to the sort of help that the Bill is all about. Obviously, many of them will not require child care places in the normal sense because they are under the full-time care of foster parents, but flexible arrangements will be required to help those foster parents as well.
Those are my reasons for specifically setting out looked-after children as being the responsibility of local authorities. I gather that the wording “looked-after children”, which I originally intended to use, is not acceptable in parliamentary procedure. Therefore, the amendment proposes that the definition of a parent should include
“an employee of an English local authority with responsibility for the care of a ... child.”
I believe that these probing amendments are worthy of a response from the Minister.

Maria Eagle: I hope that I can provide reassurance on the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. I agree with him about the importance of looked-after children and the difficulties that they still face. When one looks at outcomes, it becomes clear that they are not doing as well as their peers who are not in care. I agree with him that when we come to evaluate the effectiveness of the legislation should it pass through its legislative stages in this House and the other place, the outcomes for looked-after children will be a key part in determining whether we look back on the Bill as a success and whether it does what we intend it to do.
Some of the figures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are absolutely right. In fact, in any one year, we are talking about some 90,000 rather than 61,000 children, because children come in and out of care, sometimes on a short-term basis. Although it is still a small minority, the figure is slightly larger than the one that he mentioned, which refers to children who are looked after from the beginning to the end of any one year.
The amendments would specifically include in the definition of “parent” in clause 2 individuals who are employed by local authorities to try to capture those who are looking after children in care. In the clause as it stands, a parent is defined as including any individual who
“has parental responsibility for a ... child, or ... care of a ... child.”
Therefore, any carer who is looking after a child on behalf of a local authority, regardless of who their employer is, is already included by virtue of being an individual with care of a child. I think that the hon. Gentleman suspected that that was the case, and he was right to do so. The intention is to ensure that when carrying out the new duties to improve outcomes, secure sufficient child care and provide information, local authorities do not lose sight of the looked-after children who are in their own care. That is the intention behind all the amendments tabled by the hon. Gentleman. That is, of course, not only laudable as an objective, but achieving it will be essential to the success of the Bill.
As the hon. Gentleman also said in his opening remarks, the consequences for looked-after children—the fact that they do so much worse than their peers who have not been in care—is reflected in the figures for homelessness and worklessness. He mentioned teenage pregnancy in that context, although he did not mention offending. A disproportionate number of those who have been in care engage in offending behaviour, and the consequences of that can be catastrophic, not only for the individual, but for others in society. Those are just the kind of children that the Bill should assist.
I think that there is agreement on both sides of the House about the importance of ensuring that the provisions of the Bill have an impact on looked-after children. We had a bit of a debate about gaps this morning and I think that the obligation to narrow the gap between those achieving the best and the worst outcomes will focus the minds of local authorities, and those on whom the obligations are placed in practice, on how to improve the outcomes for those who are doing worst, which, in many instances, will be looked-after children. The overall aim and intention of the Bill, if its provisions are implemented properly, is to focus its good effects particularly on looked-after children.
Looked-after children who are under five are entitled to their free early-years provision in the same way as other children. The local authority is under a duty to secure that provision under clause 7.
I shall clarify the point that the hon. Gentleman made about children’s homes. Clause 18(5) means that a place in a children’s home is not defined as child care in the Bill. The duty of the local authority to secure sufficient child care remains unchanged.
All hon. Members can agree on the need to bear in mind especially the impact of measures on looked-after children who, as the hon. Gentleman said, have higher levels of ill-health—often mental ill-health—and much higher levels of special educational needs. If the Bill, when it is enacted, is to make the difference that we all wish to see, it must have a positive impact on looked-after children.

Tim Loughton: I am encouraged by the Minister’s words, and there is a great deal of agreement between us on this matter.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Tim Loughton: I was about to start a really ace intervention, but I have forgotten the train of it. I think the question I was going to ask the Minister related to the possible conflict of interests. What mechanisms are there for ensuring, as we both hope will happen, that looked-after children at least get equal access to nursery place provision or whatever it may be? The local authority will not blow the whistle on itself if those children have been disadvantaged in some way.

Maria Eagle: It is amazing how all the best interventions disappear on the way down to the Lobby. That was what the hon. Gentleman was starting to say, so he seemed to have remembered it pretty well. The outcomes from the Bill and the obligations that it imposes upon local authorities to improve outcomes will be tested by joint area reviews and by our comprehensive performance assessment. We will look for signs of improvement.
In this new world, partly signalled by children’s trusts, we are moving away from precisely establishing detailed targets from Whitehall for specific ways of doing things. However, the corollary is that we will test local authorities in respect of the new obligations that they are being placed under, specifically here to increase the well-being of all children and to narrow the gap between those doing better and those doing worse. We will do that with a panoply of assessments and inspections.
The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that various inspection regimes—we will come to the effect that the Bill has on those in due course—will also look specifically at the outcomes for looked-after children. He might also be aware, because he will have read the schools White Paper, that we said that we were looking at new policy interventions to try to give a further boost—we all accept that it is needed—in policy terms to ensure improved and better outcomes for looked-after children.

Tim Loughton: The purpose of these probing amendments was to get a discussion on looked-after children. There may be opportunities later in the Bill to return to that subject. It is useful that the Minister and I have both put on the record the absolute imperative that looked-after children are in no way disadvantaged in gaining access to some of the child care provisions that are available to other children who happen to live with their birth families or some other form of extended family or carers. I am grateful to the Minister for her elaboration. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Specific duties of local authority in relation to early childhood services

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 71, in clause 3, page 2, line 39, after ‘services’, insert ‘as widely as possible’.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in clause 3, page 3, line 2, at end insert—
‘(3A)The authority shall publish the criteria used to identify such parents and prospective parents under subsection (3).’.

Tim Loughton: One of the issues that we have already covered is the importance of ensuring that the new places and services are as accessible as possible, not least to those disadvantaged people who tend not to come forward as easily as the others who are more conversant with the system and who are able to take advantage of it. Clause 3(2) lays an obligation on the authority to
“make arrangements to secure that early childhood services in their area are provided in an integrated manner”.
I am sure that we all applaud the sentiment behind the reference to “an integrated manner”. It is important that all the considerations that we are discussing—geographical access, the appropriateness of access, the quality of the care and the appropriateness of the care that parents seek to access—are joined-up.
The obligation on the local authority is to
“facilitate access to those services”.
That is fine in as far as it goes. It is important that access is facilitated—that is, that there is a perfectly usable form, poster or leaflet, or information on the internet, so that if someone is so minded and able to find that information, they can seek to gain access to the service. However, it is surely more important that access is facilitated as widely as possible, so that as many people as possible for whom the child care services are appropriate can find out about and gain access to them.
By elaborating slightly on the phraseology in the clause, my hon. Friends and I are trying to achieve what I am sure the Minister intends. It is a helpfully intended probing amendment that would address the disadvantage that we spoke about at length this morning. It would ensure that people were provided not only with access but were encouraged to gain access if they would benefit from the service.
Amendment No. 2 is contingent on that. We suggest including after subsection (3) an additional consideration:
“The authority shall publish the criteria used to identify such parents and prospective parents under subsection (3)”.
That means the parents who are being encouraged to use the child care services that will now be provided. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the local authority has not just gone through the motions and made limited access available, but has gone the extra mile to ensure that access is advertised and explained as widely as possible and that disadvantaged parents in particular take advantage of that. If, in the Bill, we explicitly encouraged local authorities to  facilitate access to the services “as widely as possible”, it would be fair that they should publish as part of their reporting mechanisms, which we have already spoken about, the basis or criteria on which they identified the parents who will need the child care services that the Bill is all about.
Again, these are probing amendments, but they would strengthen the intention behind the legislation by giving a little more detail to the phrases used in clause 3.

Ann Coffey: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is very important to ensure that those who are most disadvantaged take advantage of the services offered. In my constituency, there is a local Sure Start programme that is health led, as are some other Sure Start programmes. That gives a huge advantage locally, in that it is easy to identify the children and families who need the services because they are already known to the local health services. They know when a child has been born and the birth is followed up anyway by a visit from a health visitor or a community nurse, who is in a good position to encourage the parent to take advantage of some of the local services.
I understand that, unfortunately, that may not be the position elsewhere. Some Sure Start programmes have had difficulty in sharing health information because it is held in a database by the local primary care trust and is, therefore, subject to data protection. In responding, I want the Minister to explain how we can ensure that, in areas where disadvantaged families are in contact with health services, identification is passed to other agencies so that we can encourage and give information to parents. It is not enough to publish information; we have to go a step further for some families. Moreover, disadvantaged families are often happier to take information and advice from a health visitor, but someone new who knocks on the door is, perhaps, not received with similar good will.

Beverley Hughes: Amendment No. 71 seeks to ensure that local authorities facilitate access to early childhood services as widely as possible. In discussing these matters, it is important to be clear about the intention of clause 3. The best way to pursue better outcomes for young children is by integrating services through children’s centres. Clause 3 represents the legal underpinning for the continuity of children’s centres as the way in which those services will be integrated. Under the clauses, local authorities will have to provide a wide range of services to all families and children living in their areas. Clause 3 places a duty on local authorities to ensure that they secure early childhood services in an integrated manner that facilitates access and maximises benefits to parents, prospective parents and young children. As stated in the Bill, that covers all parents, prospective parents and young children in the local authority area. The population covered by that duty is as wide as possible.
The children’s centre practice guidance that we have issued gives very detailed direction on what provision of information and access should involve, which will certainly not just be the production of posters or leaflets. There is detailed guidance to ensure that all parents are made aware of the services that are available to them. More importantly—certainly for excluded families and hard-to-engage families—the centres will have to provide outreach services so that people go out to identify at-risk children, hard-to-reach families and disadvantaged families to build relationships and to try to get them to the centre where integrated services are more readily available. Outreach work is a very important part of the children’s centre model.
I point hon. Members to clause 3(4)(a), (b) and (c), which state that the local authority must take all reasonable steps to encourage and facilitate the involvement of parents and prospective parents. We have yet to debate it, but clause 12 imposes a duty on the local authority to provide parents and prospective parents with not just information, but advice and assistance in accessing the services that they need—not just child care but children’s services more generally.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that if he puts those different parts of the Bill together, it shows a strong story of our commitment to engaging parents, to facilitating access and to providing them not just with information but with advice and assistance on how to use those services and get the best out of them. That will be one-to-one advice for certain families, which is the duty in clause 12.
Amendment No. 2 would place an additional duty on every local authority to publish the criteria that they use to identify and target the families that are perhaps most in need and certainly most likely to benefit from integrated childhood services. Local authorities will obviously need to identify and then try to reach out to those people in the groups that are often excluded from services. That is why we have put a duty on local authorities, both to improve outcomes and to reduce inequalities. It is also why in the detailed children’s centre practice guidance that we published last week, we gave examples of the groups that research shows need to be targeted by children’s centres. Those include teenage parents, those in workless households, lone parents, parents of disabled children, and black and ethnic minority families. That is not intended to be an exhaustive list, and I would expect every local authority to take that approach but look also at the local population and local needs.
We are going to issue further guidance for the full set of early childhood services, so we will ensure that those key messages about targeted groups are incorporated. Although I agree with the principle of transparency, which I think is intended in the amendment, and the publishing of criteria, I am concerned about what that would mean. First, putting a duty on local authorities would be overly prescriptive. Secondly, and more importantly, if local authorities start to publish criteria for identifying the kind of disadvantaged families that they want to get into children’s centres, that risks  stigmatising not just people in those groups but the concept of using the children’s centre as a whole by families from all groups. Some parents would not then wish to be associated with people in the identified groups and the children’s centre. That could mean that they avoid getting the support that they need. I do not think that amendment No. 71 is needed, because there are strong arrangements in the Bill that speak loudly about our commitment to information, advice and assistance. I am concerned that amendment No. 2 would not only not help local authorities, but could be a hindrance to encouraging people to use children’s centres.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) raised an important point about the integration of health services and the importance of the use of health data, and the need to go further than normal measures to engage hard-to-reach families. Those issues are very important. The existing Sure Start local programmes where health is securely integrated—in a minority of such programmes, the PCTs have been in the lead of the delivery and management of the centres—have delivered some good outcomes for children. It is absolutely imperative that we get their involvement and the ability to share the largely excellent data that health services have about children and families in their communities.
I hope that I have answered my hon. Friend’s second point by stressing, as I did a few minutes ago, the importance of the outreach services in all the models of children’s centres. She rightly identifies that we must ensure that staff go out to families who would not otherwise come into the centres of their own volition, for reasons that we all understand.

Tim Loughton: Again, I am grateful to the Minister. They were probing amendments, and the hon. Member for Stockport made some useful comments, particularly about the experience in some areas with Sure Start projects that work well in disseminating information about what is available in them. However, some of us do not have Sure Start projects in our areas; we do not have one in my constituency.

Beverley Hughes: Yet.

Tim Loughton: Indeed. The more I mention that, the more likely it is. I hope, that we will get one in the not-too-distant future.
Where such a framework does not exist already, it is that much more difficult to disseminate such information and ensure that one reaches disadvantaged parents, who are, in many cases, off the radar, but who still count towards the well-being figures that are not being achieved. It is therefore essential that they are included to help the local authority to ensure that figures such as the well-being criteria reflect the improvements in the quality of the services being offered.

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend says that many hard-to-reach families are off the radar. A more appropriate phrase might be “off the electoral register”. In cities with a high level of population churn, it is vital to ensure that local authorities are properly funded in the sorts of areas in which they need a regular outreach process that might be more intensive than those in areas with a slower population churn. That would ensure that people are not falling through the cracks simply because they are in different places from one day to the next.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is a serious question to be asked about how thoroughly local authorities will track down some of the more anonymous and transient people, particularly in the London boroughs and constituencies such as hers.
There is also the whole subject of private fostering to consider; many of us have serious concerns about how the Bill will offer better child care facilities for children whose carers are determined to keep them hidden from public view. Hence my concern about ensuring that local authorities go the extra mile to ensure that they try to reach all such people. Actually, it is not technically in the interests of local authorities to reach some of those people if they are anonymous from the qualitative assessment figures. Therefore, the legislation that made it more incumbent on local authorities to try to track down private fostering arrangements is a double-edged sword.
I do not accept that there is a risk of stigmatising with amendment No. 2. We are not saying that it should be published that the local authority is doing great things to get down-and-out families involved in all this—that is not the way in which it is going to be put—but information will have to be published in relation to improvement figures anyway. All that I am asking is that local authorities should have to ensure that they range their nets as far and wide as possible, that they are seen to do so and that they are accountable. That should not be seen as stigmatising, because the services will be available to all parents. It is simply that such services are particularly appropriate for disadvantaged children. There should therefore be encouragement to ensure that such children take advantage of such services, to which they are perfectly entitled, when, for a host of reasons, they have not come forward to do so.
I shall not press the amendments. We have had a useful exchange, and local authorities will have heard the Minister’s comments about the various mechanisms in place, such as the outreach facilities that are being encouraged, which are vital to facilitate the plans. The message is clear that they will be expected to do not the minimum, but the maximum to range their nets far and wide. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Cawsey.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Six o’clock till Thursday 8 December at Nine o’clock.